You not a fan of Vaughan? Much prefer that era to Strauss and Cook's stodge.I hope not.
Think he was probably referring to how Vaughan's run-scoring dropped off after he was made captain.You not a fan of Vaughan? Much prefer that era to Strauss and Cook's stodge.
Good point, Williamson certainly doesn't look like a natural leader on the field, and Kohli is far too aggressive (in his behavior, not decisions) so I almost think he is more suited to a sidekick vice-captain kind of role rather than captain, Smith to me looks like the most natural of them all.Genuine question: How many of the current captains in test cricket would most of us consider natural leaders? Do Kohli, Smith and Williamson qualify?
Bingo.Think he was probably referring to how Vaughan's run-scoring dropped off after he was made captain.
Bit disingenuous to bring up Bairstow when the decision was made weeks if not months before the game, at a point when it wasn't known as being a title decider.I agree in regards to the international set-up however, although it has been the country's game, it has also been the counties' loss. Since central contracts you get a sense that the counties have been reduced (in the eyes of the hierarchy and unfortunately some of the players) into merely a rehearsal school for the test team. Some of the ECB chicanery has been infuriating, for instance, Bairstow being barred from playing against Middlesex in what is tantamount to a final by (Middlesex's) Strauss, and players (e.g. Woakes) being yanked from a county match mid-match.
Disingenuous? Me? In what manner? There was certainly enough of a ruckus at the time over the Bairstow decision - I'm not the only one who thought it was a shocking move by Strauss and his ECB chums,Bit disingenuous to bring up Bairstow when the decision was made weeks if not months before the game, at a point when it wasn't known as being a title decider.
People can learn to lead but natural leaders are easy to see, largely because they communicate with people well (generally in their own personal way) and importantly people respond to them positively. These people are difficult to find. Of current/recent captains. Faf is a natural leader, so was G.Smith and Dhoni. Amla, deVillers are not. For my mind Kohli and Williamson are not natural leaders; Smith I`m unsure about. Root for me is not a natural leader; but I don`t know who else England could pick.The idea of someone being a "natural leader" is so nebulous and hard to judge without seeing the person in question actually lead though. And even then, I'm not quite sure who qualifies and who doesn't.
Genuine question: How many of the current captains in test cricket would most of us consider natural leaders? Do Kohli, Smith and Williamson qualify?
I personally don't think so, for different reasons, but would love to hear others' opinions on this.
Lan****ster, surely?I suppose that makes my lot Lancscumshite
I am calling BS on that. Border didn't fit that description but was a great cap.People can learn to lead but natural leaders are easy to see, largely because they communicate with people well (generally in their own personal way) and importantly people respond to them positively. These people are difficult to find. Of current/recent captains. Faf is a natural leader, so was G.Smith and Dhoni. Amla, deVillers are not. For my mind Kohli and Williamson are not natural leaders; Smith I`m unsure about. Root for me is not a natural leader; but I don`t know who else England could pick.
My comment was what is a natural leader, not that people who are not natural leaders can`t captain well.I am calling BS on that. Border didn't fit that description but was a great cap.